The Phony Science Behind Obama's EPA Ozone Regulation

According to the President's head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, we need to lower the current allowable ozone rates from 75 parts-per-billion (ppb) to at least 65-70 ppb, and eventually to 60 ppb.  Her primary argument for doing this is improved health; especially in children with asthma.  In a commentary that McCarthy wrote, that was published by CNN, she said this:

For our children, that means avoiding up to 1 million missed school days, thousands of cases of acute bronchitis, and nearly a million asthma attacks. Adults could avoid hundreds of emergency room visits for cardiovascular reasons, up to 180,000 missed work days, and 4 million days where people have to deal with pollution-related symptoms.

To further justify the EPA requirement, she added this:

Thousands of scientific studies (from renowned institutions like Harvard University, the University of North Carolina Medical School, and many others) tell us that cutting air pollution to meet ozone standards lowers the risk of asthma, permanent lung damage, cardiovascular harm, and premature death.

Now, there is no way that I or anyone else can factually prove that reducing ozone lowers the risk of permanent lung damage, cardiovascular disease, or premature deaths.  All of these health issues are the result of a number of other variables such as smoking, work environment, family histories, etc.  But, I can tell you one thing: Every year, Americans are living longer.

As to the theory that lowering ozone levels reduces the risk of asthma, especially in children, let me say this. From an emotional standpoint, it is always difficult to argue against any regulation that would help children, but please consider the following:

Instead of using anecdotal evidence from some government-sponsored Harvard study, I would prefer to use actual evidence from the Center for Disease Control (CDC); which, apparently, Gina McCarthy never heard of.  You see, the CDC collects physical data on all kinds of diseases.  In the period from 2006-2008, they found that 9% of children had prevalent asthma.  Then, in 2008, the EPA mandate of ozone levels of 75 ppb went into effect. Therefore, one would think that the risk of children getting asthma would have lessened.  However, 4 years later, in 2012, the CDC determined that the percentage of children with asthma actually went up to 9.3%.  Also, in 1996, the percent of children with asthma was only 6%. So, why is the rate of children with asthma so much higher?  This, despite a near 75% drop in ozone as this chart from the EPA shows:

Image link remove by EPA. I wonder why?

So, tell me. Where is the correlation between asthma and ozone? Are we once again being lied to by the Obama Administration and using junk science to establish more major impediments to business merely to make the liberal base of environmentalists happy? 

The proposed new regulation(s) on ozone is expected to cost our economy $3.4 trillion in economic output by 2040.  With, at the same time, a loss of 2.9 million jobs in the process.   Of course, the EPA claims that for every dollar spent in compliance, $3 in health benefits will be returned.  Obviously, then, we should see $10.2 trillion in health benefits by 2040.  To put that number into perspective, Americans spend about $2.8 trillion on health care each year.  So, we are now expected to believe that we will save nearly 4 years worth of all the current health care spending by 2040?  I doubt anyone who knows numbers would seriously think that is even possible.

References:

CNN: Gina McCarthy:  U.S. EPA: We need tougher ozone standards: http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/26/news/economy/epa-stronger-ozone-standard/

Americans Can Now Expect to Live Longer Than Ever | TIME: http://time.com/3481226/life-expectancy-record/

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

‘The most expensive regulation ever’  Obama rolls out a major EPA rule: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/epa-ozone-standard-113183.html

Current Asthma Prevalence --- United States, 2006--2008: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a18.htm

CDC: Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2012: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_258.pdf

June 2000: Childhood Asthma: In 1996, 4.4 million children, or 6 percent of the U.S. population under 18 years of age, had asthma: http://www.agingsociety.org/agingsociety/pdf/asthma.pdf

EPA: Ozone Season NOx Reductions: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/NBP_1.html

 

On Climate Change, Obama Shifts Tactics To Saving Our Children

Obama knows that there are two major criticisms of his proposed smack down of the coal industry in his latest go-it-alone roll out of EPA regulations.

First, it will effectively put 1.6 million relatively high paying jobs at risk that are directly involved in coal mining in 26 states.  Many of these workers live in towns where these are the only jobs available. Then, too, how many other jobs will be lost, not directly involved in the mining process is anyone's guess. Secondly, the economy will lose billions trying to comply with these regulations. Ultimately, every American will be paying higher prices for electricity and higher costs for almost everything that is dependent on electricity for its production.

Further, foreign made products, which won't have to contend with harsh regulations, will only become more competitive.  Thus, if American manufactures are to compete in their own country, they'll have no other choice but to move their manufacturing out of the U.S.  And, in doing so, create even more atmospheric CO2 than would have been created if production remained in the U.S.

So, in order to thwart any criticism of his planned EPA crackdown on coal and other energy sources, the President has now decided to put his critics in an indefensible position by using America's children as props, or more accurately, as human shields.

On Saturday, May 31st, he gave his weekly address from the very hospital where he had just visited children with asthma.  He said this:

"In America, we don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children."

So, there we have it. If you oppose his new regulations, you are a heartless person who is putting the almighty dollar above the plight of the nation's children. End of story.

Additionally, in order to emphasize how beneficial and health-wise, his plan would be, he made these predictions.

"In just the first year that these standards go into effect, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks will be avoided – and those numbers will go up from there."

These types of projections are bogus.

First of all, I would ask him to show us the actual research behind those numbers.

Secondly, heart attacks are not normally environmentally triggered. In adults, lifestyle issues -- such as smoking, alcohol consumption, high cholesterol, and obesity -- are the most important contributing factors. For children, heart attacks are rare; and, if they do occur, they are almost always genetic in origin.  But, more importantly, preventing 2100 heart attacks against the 700,000+ that occur per year is nothing in comparison with the reduction that could be achieved with lifestyle changes.

Thirdly, there are 25 million asthmatics in this country; each of whom have at least one attack per year.  That's well in excess of 25 million attacks per year. When weighed against a prevention of 100,000  per year, we are talking about a very insignificant number.  Probably far less than one-half of one percent. The primary purpose of the President's EPA regulations is to reduce CO2 emissions; an odorless gas that each of us breathes in and out every 2 to 3 seconds.  No asthmatic or heart attack in the world would ever have been caused by an increase in CO2; even though there are some silly arguments out there that it may be causing an increase in pollen.

If Obama is worried about our kids, he should stop doing the kind of things that leave them with jobless parents or parents who keep seeing their incomes fall and their purchasing power decline as a result of price inflation for food, clothing, healthcare, and, especially, energy .  Jobless families and those with losses of income are existing in a very stressful environment; often resulting in anger, domestic violence, depression, or, even divorce.

If the President would spend more time saving families by getting them jobs and slowing inflation, he would help a lot more children than his heavy-handed EPA regulations will.

References:

After visiting kids with asthma, President Obama emphasizes need to cut carbon pollution: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/31/1303197/-After-visiting-kids-with-asthma-President-Obama-emphasizes-need-to-cut-carbon-pollution

2009: Obama Promises Skyrocketing Energy Costs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNSZ62xiD4M

Coal and jobs in the United States: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

Annual Coal Mining Wages vs. All Industries, 2012: http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_wages_state_industries.pdf

Asthma Statistics: http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/asthma-statistics.aspx

Heart Disease Facts: http://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

Consumers Under Attack from Stagnant Wages and Inflation: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/consumers-under-attack-from-stagnant-wages-and-inflation.html/?a=viewall

Reality of stagnant wages, rising costs stifles middle-class dreams: http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/reality-of-stagnant-wages-rising-costs-stifles-middle-class-dreams/article_6d4f26c2-1c0b-5042-84ae-1c634930e7b3.html